As we noted at the time, many of her arguments apply equally to SOPA's regulation of the internet, but she just doesn't seem to get it. Here are just a few of her arguments:

But some people fear that without government intervention, that entrepreneurs and innovators are going to hijack the internet that you enjoy... the World Wide Web! This has never happened and there has never been a time that a consumer has needed a federal bureaucrat to intervene.... Here's what they want to do: Take the private internet and put it all under government control. Think about it: what's going to happen to the next Facebook innovator, if they have to go apply with the government to get approval to develop a new application. And what would happen to your small business, if you had to depend on internet speeds that Uncle Sam says is going to be okay.... We want to keep [the internet] open, free and prosperous.

How that doesn't apply equally to SOPA... I don't know. But she's listed as a co-sponsor. Funny, that. Especially since SOPA is likely to have a much more direct impact on "the next Facebook innovator" than anything in the (yes, poorly designed) net neutrality rules put forth by the FCC.

Unfortunately, Gross's article only names a few names. But not all of them. So we thought we might as well do that. Below, for your viewing pleasure, the list of hypocritical Congressional Reps and Senators who claim to be against regulating the internet, but have no problem doing so when it comes to SOPA or PROTECT IP (PIPA):

Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee

Rep. Mary Bono Mack, California

Rep. John Carter, Texas

Rep. Steven Chabot, Ohio

Rep. Elton Gallegly, California

Rep. Robert Goodlatte, Virginia

Rep. Tim Griffin, Arkansas

Rep. Peter King, New York

Rep. Thomas Marino, Pennsylvania

Rep. Alan Nunnelee, Mississippi

Rep. Dennis Ross, Florida

Rep. Steve Scalise, Louisiana

Rep. Lee Terry, Nebraska

Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire

Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri

Sen. John Boozman, Arkansas

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia

Sen. Thad Cochran, Mississippi

Sen. Bob Corker, Tennessee

Sen. Michael Enzi, Wyoming

Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina

Sen. Charles Grassley, Iowa

Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah

Sen. John Isakson, Georgia

Sen. James Risch, Idaho

Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida

Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana

Of course, the really amazing thing is that SOPA and PIPA are much more about regulating the internet than the FCC's "net neutrality" rules are. I already think the FCC's rules are pretty silly (designed more to protect a few big businesses), but they'll have little to no impact on everyday internet startups. That's not true of SOPA/PIPA. Those rules will have a massive impact on every day startups. So how can supporters of SOPA/PIPA claim to be against "regulating the internet" while signing on to a bill that is almost entirely about regulating the internet?

Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

Re:

I really don't think there's enough room on the interwebs for that info. When was the last time politicians voted FOR the people's will? All of them support the wishes of whomever gives them the most money. That's why they all seem to "flip-flop" at a moments notice.

Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

I'm not going to defend Grooveshark. Grooveshark will fail in court because they paid employees to upload music. If the labels make the argument in court, Grooveshark will lose their safe harbor because of that. The DMCA is sufficient to deal with groovshark.

SOPA goes beyond punishing bad actors. It provides tools that will be used to hurt legitimate businesses and public forums and will drive investment out of the United States. As written, it is bad public policy.

Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

There's never a reason to allow censorship under the guise of piracy.
A lot of people that do pirate software, movies, music, ect., some of those people actually do buy what they pirate if they enjoy using it that much, just to give money to the creators.

Government Regulation - the Perpetual Bogyman

Blackburn simply regurgitates the too easy mindless blame government regulation mantra. --> "Take the private internet and put it all under government control." These proposals for so-called government control are being pushed by private industry for the benefit of companies that can "buy" our politicians.

Blackburn goes on to say: "Think about it: what's going to happen to the next Facebook innovator, if they have to go apply with the government to get approval to develop a new application." Again, it is private industry that is attempting to use regulations to quash competition.

Blackburn should be demanding that the private refrain from manipulating the politicians and to let the free-market work.

Why does Marsha Want Congress to Regulate the Internet? Why not just say NO FEDERAL branch (the FCC and congress and the federal courts included) has any authority to decide or rule on any aspect concerning the Internet?

Tweet your congress critters!

because they have no clue about the internet, no clue about the impact the bill(s) will have on EVERYBODY, including them, that use the internet, because they are more concerned with their pockets than the people that put them where they are and are supposed to be representing and basically, because they dont give a flying f**k for anyone other than themselves, even though they are making themselves look like absolute twats!

Vote with your Twitter account

If you believe in Net-Neutrality, go public by posting it on your Twitter account. Either go here: http://hashthevote.com/issue/net-neutrality and click "Vote Yes" or tweet with the hashtag: #NetNeutrality_YES (either way, we will pick up your vote).

Re: Re: Re:

Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

Seriously? While I don't condone grooveshark because of it's copyright infringement, that does not mean we need SOPA. The RIAA already has the right to sue you into oblivion for a song playing in the background of a video on youtube. If anything we need underregulation.

Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

Seriously? While I don't condone grooveshark because of it's copyright infringement, that does not mean we need SOPA. The RIAA already has the right to sue you into oblivion for a song playing in the background of a video on youtube. If anything we need underregulation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:

Because the current laws require pesky things like due process, evidence and the right to trial. These people want ultimate sanctions based on mere accusations, with the victim bearing any related costs.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

We know you are. Hence daily showing up on the site and trying to dismiss everything Mike and others say or denounce them and attack them with ad homs.

If you weren't scared, you wouldn't feel the need to do any of that (unless you're just acting like a child or a troll that is).

Your fear that people are waking up to what you just tried to have passed without their knowledge and are now responding in turn is evident to all. You are indeed scared. Poor AC. You were so close. You'd have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids.

It is possible to be against "net neutrality" while being in favor of SOPA/Protect-IP. They are directed to different issues. To call those who may recognize the differences and support one but not the other "hypocrites" is quite misleading.